Waco, Texas, 1993

Dave!

Hey folks,

I thought that Politics was the best place to put this, as it's not a moral issue so doesn't fit in Humanities, and I'm not putting forward any Conspiracy Theories, so it doesn't go there (although it may end up there ).

I don't actually know much about Waco. I'd heard about it before now, but never thought to research it at all. But I've just been looking at some clips on YouTube (this one in particular(it's quite biased): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpHT07yQZj0&p=8DA788FC9605B823&index=1) and trying to get a picture of what happened.

For those of you who know about it, what do you think happened? Who fire the first shots? From what I understand, the ATF fired first, but at the dogs which were guarding the doors, and it progressed from there. Were the ATF and the FBI out of line? Who do you think was responsible for the fires?

Perhaps I'm leading this into a conspiracy thread...

Anyway, feel free to post what you think happened and who is accountable! And if you have any books to recommend on the subject, post the titles and authors if ya can. Thanks!

DublinWriter

I was watching one particular programme about Waco recently.

One of the interviewes stated that at the time the ATF were slated to have their SWAT team axed. Waco provided them to 'showcase' their ATF team on live TV, but it all went so badly wrong that eventually they were pulled and the FBI were sent in.

ISAW

DublinWriter wrote:

I was watching one particular programme about Waco recently.

One of the interviewes stated that at the time the ATF were slated to have their SWAT team axed. Waco provided them to 'showcase' their ATF team on live TV, but it all went so badly wrong that eventually they were pulled and the FBI were sent in.

From memory:

The FBI made a mess of negotiation.
Tanks were driven through the wall into the school yard and ran over childrens bikes.
The old floodlight andf noise routine.
Talking at the front while smashing in the back.
Abrams M1A1 Main battle tanks and several Bradely fighting Vehicles.
OV-10 aircraft and national guard from three states away were used (against federal law to operate outside the home state).
The excuse was they posed a "threat to the frontier" - The mexican Border was hundreds of miles away!
The straffing of the roof (where the occupants had put the women and children).
Burning the place to the ground or not having fire tenders to stop it burning.

It was a disaster.

bk

There is little doubt that the entire situation was badly handled by the authorities, however it should be remembered that many of these people were basically crazy, dangerous and criminal.

Their leader raped children in the group as young as 12 and 13.

They were also building up a massive arsenal of weapons, the initial raid occurred after a UPS driver reported that grenade casings had been delivered to the ranch. These weren't sane people.

Zombrex

The problem with a situation like Waco is that any show of force by the government to control groups like this is going to be interpretated as exactly what the religious nuts expected to happen, that being the devil's forces coming to get them.

So you need really really good negotators with experience dealing with cults to defuse situations like this. AFAIK they didn't have that at Waco

Repli

bk wrote:

There is little doubt that the entire situation was badly handled by the authorities, however it should be remembered that many of these people were basically crazy, dangerous and criminal.
These weren't sane people.

"however it should be remembered??" That 27 of the 80~ people who died WERE children themselves? Also, being burned to death isn't suitable punishment for being 'crazy' and stockpiling weapons imo. Being member of a cult doesn't necessarily make you a dangerous criminal. David was mental yes but he was just 1 of the people who was killed.

The problem with the Fbi/ATF was they treated the whole thing as a hostage situation despite a video being sent out to them from a lot of the adults/older children saying they wanted to stay with David. There is strong evidence that the fire was started by the Fbi and that t hey shot at ppl who tried to escape the building. So in short, imo the Fbi/ATF screwed up their handling of the situation and should have negotiated better.

RedPlanet

bk wrote:

There is little doubt that the entire situation was badly handled by the authorities, however it should be remembered that many of these people were basically crazy, dangerous and criminal.

Their leader raped children in the group as young as 12 and 13.

They were also building up a massive arsenal of weapons, the initial raid occurred after a UPS driver reported that grenade casings had been delivered to the ranch. These weren't sane people.

Hold on there bk, the allegation that David Koresh raped children has never been proved and survivors say that it was just black propaganda.
I'd say he's innocent til proven guilty. I remember seeing an interview with a child survivor and she was under 10, well spoken, eloquent, good vocabulary and spoke favorably of David Koresh.

Wikipedia has a couple of articles:

"The Danforth Report claims that those who died were unable, or unwilling to flee and that Steve Schneider, Koresh's right-hand man, probably shot Koresh and killed himself with the same gun. "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" presents evidence that FBI sharpshooters fired on, and killed, many Branch Davidians who attempted to flee the flames. Testimony by the few Branch Davidians who did successfully flee the fire supports this claim. Autoposy records indicate that at least 20 Branch Davidians were shot, including 5 children. The Danforth Report claims that the adults who who died of gunshot wounds shot themselves after shooting the children."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege

"Outside the building, tracked vehicles pushed aside vehicles from parking areas and began circling the building. Loudspeakers were used to broadcast sounds (including those of rabbits being slaughtered) at the building in a psychological warfare tactic intended to tire those inside. The Davidians hung banners from high places in the building seeking outside help."
The sound of rabbits being slaughtered?
Jeez if that's true they are some sick f-cks.

bonkey

DaveMcG wrote:

For those of you who know about it, what do you think happened?

I think it was a completely mis-managed situation that had spiralled out of control long before the first shots were fired.

Motives, reasons, who shot first, why what was done was done and who did exactly what....couldn't honestly say and don't care to speculate.

who is accountable!

All involved share some degree, assuming you're not really asking who should be held to account.

I'd be happier to see the problems with the system tackled with, to be honest.

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

Jeez if that's true they are some sick f-cks.

Thats kinda the reaction that psy-ops are designed to engender.

DublinWriter

bonkey wrote:

Motives, reasons, who shot first, why what was done was done and who did exactly what....couldn't honestly say and don't care to speculate.

I can and will.

Firstly, I'll preface what I'm going to say by stating that I've no time for Koresh, he was a dangerous child-raping messianic loon.

What happened initially was the ATF wading their SWAT team in there like cock-jockeys. Their SWAT team was due to be axed later that year, but they thought if they pulled off an SAS-Libyian embassy-like-stunt on live TV then their asses would be golden.

What should have happened should have been a stand-off long-term seige, with protracted negotiations, with a gradual release of the kids inside the compound. Any best-practice police manual would have shown this to be the right approach.

Manic Moran

People looking for government conspiracies or cover-ups should divert their attentions more to the Waco incident than 9/11. There's far more evidence in its favour. It's part of the reason the ATF is one of the more hated organisations. I don't know if it was just partisan politics, but Schumer in particular was an ass in the hearings, obviously going in with a not open mind.

As has been referenced, there was some perceived need for the ATF to score a bit of a publicity coup: The appropriations committee was meeting the next week. In the Davidians, there was a group of people known to have dealings with firearms, in a big, camera-friendly compound, with an alternative lifestyle which leads people to think that illegal goings-on might be at hand. Other than Koresh thinking he was a new messiah, and not even a perfect one at that, not much illegal was ever proven to be occuring. (And some scholars believe that the illegal occurances relating to firearms were actually only illegal under an unconstitutional set of laws. The Supreme Court has as yet not ruled on the 2nd Ammendment)

So anyway, they go down to Waco, they have a bunch of claims on the warrant, most of which aren't within the ATF's jurisdiction (The ATF was has no jurisdiction over child molestation (never proven) or any such, it was purely a firearms raid, legally speaking), but it looks good, and they let the local media know that something's going to happen. As one congresscritter pointed out in the hearings, the ATF had all the faxes and landlines set up in the command post for the PR coup afterwards, but when it came down to the agents on the scene calling for an ambulance, they had no communication and had to tell a local TV crew to make a 'phone call.

In they go, they make a complete dog's dinner of the whole spiel. Various disputes ensue over who fired first, but the upshot is four dead agents, and two dead Davidians. The killings of the agents were in later trials of Davidian survivors ruled to be justifiable homicides (Yes, you can shoot cops in self defense), but the government was not about to admit defeat and that they'd screwed up, so they call in the FBI who surrounds the place with men, searchlights, loudspeakers, and armoured vehicles.

Fifty some days later, the FBI runs out of patience (there is some thought given that Koresh was about to come out, after he had finished uncoding the seven seals, whatever that is). They decide to force the issue with the use of CS gas. They use engineer vehicles modified with a CS sprayer on the boom to poke holes in the walls and spray inside. (Incidently, contrary to the earlier post, no tanks were used: There were M578 CEVs, M88 ARVs and M2 Bradleys present, the CEVs were the only ones used to poke the holes/spray gas). Interestingly, as the CEVs were knocking down walls and windows, the FBI were announcing "This is not an assault." I don't know what else you'd call it, myself. Anyway, as the CEVs are barging around outside, they knocked over/crushed petrol/oil/fuel storage facilities, and it didn't help that CS is flammable itself.

Something set off a flame. The official story is that the Davidians lit it themselves, though this is denied by the survivors. Other theories are that it could have been started by 40mm CS grenades, which have a small pyrotechnic element, or small arms fire. The FBI say they never fired a single shot, though some forensic/FLIR footage indicates that this may or may not be an accurate statement. (actually, the claims are that the footage shows multiple agents firing away on full-auto, which watching it on TV seems believable). At any rate, the wood building coated with kerosene and CS catches fire. Quickly. Fire trucks are dispatched, but held at the perimeter by the FBI because the FBI was worried about the firefighters being shot at.

End result, the building burned to the ground. Post event forensics were sketchy at best, with claims of 'coverup' being quite vocal in some reputable parts.

NTM

bk

Ok, having done some further research I admit that there doesn't seem to be 100% evidence that he did rape the children, however even before the raid, Child Protective Services were very concerned about the children, they tried to interview the children in private many times, but the adults wouldn't allow it without their supervision, so in truth no one knows, but there was definite reason for concern.

One thing you have to remember, these guys were no boy scouts. They were religious extremists, who were building up a massive arsenal of weapons including grenades, .50 calibre machine guns, armoured cars and had converted all their assault riffles to fully automatic.

All of these acts were completely illegal, their neighbours in their town were rightfully very scared of them and had been calling for months before hand for the police to intervene. Either way these guys were going to get arrested.

You are perfectly correct, the ATF were complete idiots the way that they went in. They went in with all the macho bs in order to try and save their own necks, it was completely uncalled for and the entire situation could have been avoided had it been done differently.

After this the FBI took over, they did make a lot of mistakes during the siege, such as treating it as a hostage situation, but they were mostly honest mistakes because they simply didn't understand the mind of the religious extremist. hen they were negotiating with the people inside, the people continually quoted the bible and all sorts of religious babble, the FBI just didn't understand any of this and they quickly got tired of it.

From my reading and the evidence I've seen, I don't believe in any of the conspiracy theories.

1) The fire was started by the FBI.

- Three fires started in the compound at almost the same time, all the fires started deep inside the compound, far away from where the FBI were using the CS gas.

- The FBI have audio recordings from inside the compound of people saying things like: "spread the petrol on the floor", "don't light it yet", etc.

- Even if the fire had been started by accident by the FBI, there was absolutely no reason for the number of people who died, unless they wanted to die. The compound had many windows and exits, they would have had plenty of time to escape had they wanted to.

In fact one person did run out of the building on fire, but on seeing she was outside, see ran back in, a FBI agent ran in after her, dragged her out and saved her life.

2) The FBI snipers fired at people who were trying to escape.

This claim was initially made after some flashes were seen on infra-red images. However the attorneys for the Davidsons, dropped this claim in court themselves, after independent international experts found the flashes couldn't be gun fire as the flash lasted far too long for gunfire and no one in the areas of the flashes actually had any guns, the flashes were probably reflections off glass.

This conspiracy theory was completely discredited and even the survivors don't claim this any more.

3) The FBI didn't allow fire tenders near the compound when the fire started.

True, but it is obvious that you wouldn't allow fire fighters near a building of heavily armed, dangerous people. Also there was the matter that the building was full of ammunition and explosives that were extremely dangerous and were exploding in the fire.

Basically I don't believe there was any conspiracy here, when stupidity is a much more obvious reason.

This awful event was due to a serious of stupid mistakes made by various people, mixed with a group of dangerous, suicidal, religious extremists.

Interestingly the FBI did learn their lessons from this event. They brought in experts on religious extremists, etc. They were actually involved in a similar situation with another group a while later and using their new training and experts, they were able to diffuse the situation and get the people to surrender peacefully.

RedPlanet

bk wrote:

Ok, having done some further research I admit that there doesn't seem to be 100% evidence that he did rape the children, however even before the raid, Child Protective Services were very concerned about the children, they tried to interview the children in private many times, but the adults wouldn't allow it without their supervision, so in truth no one knows, but there was definite reason for concern.

Doesn't seem to be 100% evidence?
In fact, in reality there exits no evidence that David Koresh raped children. Nil, nada, zip.
Some redneck local gossip journal from a conservative back-water sh*t hole (my opinion) doesn't make "evidence".
It's good that Child Protective Services took an interest.
But seriously, i may not allow some adult stranger (whom wants to snoop around my home on the basis of local gossip) to be alone with my child either.
It sounds like the people at the camp were sort of paranoid to begin with.
But that doesn't make anybody a child molester.

bk

RedPlanet wrote:

But seriously, i may not allow some adult stranger (whom wants to snoop around my home on the basis of local gossip) to be alone with my child either.

The thing is that an abused child in the presence of the abuser is very unlikely to say that s/he was abused. That is why normal procedure is to have a private conversation, but they couldn't because of all the gun carrying nutters standing around them wouldn't allow it. Seriously can you think of a more intimidating environment?

Oh BTW the claims that David Koresh took multiple under aged brides and abused children were made by former members of the group.

RedPlanet

bk wrote:

The thing is that an abused child in the presence of the abuser is very unlikely to say that s/he was abused. That is why normal procedure is to have a private conversation, but they couldn't because of all the gun carrying nutters standing around them wouldn't allow it. Seriously can you think of a more intimidating environment?

Oh BTW the claims that David Koresh took multiple under aged brides and abused children were made by former members of the group.

I think that's true enough, but i don't believe an adult stranger has a right to separate parent and child to have a conversation alone with the child. Not unless there is some sort of proof, like: the child being taken to hospital, or suspect bruising on the childs body or something.
I don't think that on the basis of rumor alone, someone can force the child into a conversation where they could be coached, or the child could be intimidated by the interviewer, or the interviewer could simply lie and pretend the child said this or that, or that the child nodded approval or what have you. No thank you, i'll opt to be present and if i can help it, no adult will hold a conversation with my child if i don't want that person to be speaking to them. I can just imagine some conservative "family values" Christian weirdo trying to force their proganda on the child.
Also, in my experience there are loads of gun carrying nutters in America, infact they get all irate about it when interviewed adn refer to some 2nd Amendment of the Holy Scriptures, i mean "the Constitution"..
But because a child is brought up around firearms, doesn't mean they're are intimidated. In fact, is there any reference by the Child Protection Services that said, (in their opinion) that the children were intimidated or showed signs of intimidation?

bk

RedPlanet wrote:

In fact, is there any reference by the Child Protection Services that said, (in their opinion) that the children were intimidated or showed signs of intimidation?

I believe they said that they weren't happy with the entire situation and felt that they needed more access to find out the truth.

Either way it doesn't take away from the wider conversation that they did break many laws and that they wouldn't surrender to the federal forces and seem to have committed mass suicide. Either way they weren't mentally stable.

RedPlanet

bk wrote:

I believe they said that they weren't happy with the entire situation and felt that they needed more access to find out the truth.

Either way it doesn't take away from the wider conversation that they did break many laws and that they wouldn't surrender to the federal forces and seem to have committed mass suicide. Either way they weren't mentally stable.

Yeah they sound like a bunch of fruitcakes.
I wouldn't go near any of them with a 10ft pole.
What is it about these freaky cults that attract other weirdos into their fold.
Have to question the sanity of these people, maybe there should be a kind of litmus test for people wanting to bring children into the world.

Manic Moran

bk wrote:

One thing you have to remember, these guys were no boy scouts. They were religious extremists, who were building up a massive arsenal of weapons including grenades, .50 calibre machine guns, armoured cars and had converted all their assault riffles to fully automatic.

I wish I had an automatic riffle...

After the siege was over, there was some dispute as to the presence of grenades in the Congressional hearings, or at least, the nature of the grenades. Part of the problem was that the inventory list of items found in the wreckage just said 'grenade' but could also have included the ATF's flash-bangs, which are under the law categorised as hand grenades.

The automatic rifle thing is illegal, but hardly a massive threat to national security. I know civilians who have illegally converted them. It's part of the thing I mentioned earlier about some Constitutional scholars saying that the prohibition on automatic rifles is unConstitutional. A theologian who studied the Davidian teachings testified that there was no danger of the Davidians attacking anyone, the stockpiling was twofold: Financial investment (this is Texas, after all, gun trade is big) and preparation for Armageddon. It has been theorised that if the Davidians really had weapons in that number, that the ATF raid would have been slaughtered before they reached the front door, which given their approach manner actually makes a bit of sense.

After this the FBI took over, they did make a lot of mistakes during the siege, such as treating it as a hostage situation, but they were mostly honest mistakes because they simply didn't understand the mind of the religious extremist.

True, that.

1) The fire was started by the FBI.

- Three fires started in the compound at almost the same time, all the fires started deep inside the compound, far away from where the FBI were using the CS gas.

Not necessarily. The videos appear to show that at least two of the fires were started in the places that the CEVs had only minutes earlier sprayed the gas. The CEVs were barely a hundered yards away before the first flashes of fire were seen. This is far from saying that the fires were started deliberately by the FBI. It is interesting that all three lit off almost simultaneously, however, which does provide a little more credence to the 'self-immolation' theory.

- The FBI have audio recordings from inside the compound of people saying things like: "spread the petrol on the floor", "don't light it yet", etc.

The recordings I heard were referring to not lighting molotov cocktails yet. Those would have been about the only thing of use against the CEVs which were knocking down the compound. There may have been other recordings, however. It's not as if I've listened to everything.

- Even if the fire had been started by accident by the FBI, there was absolutely no reason for the number of people who died, unless they wanted to die. The compound had many windows and exits, they would have had plenty of time to escape had they wanted to.

The majority of the people were in their former vault, which had only one entrance and little ventilation. The fire might have pinned them in, and then asphyxiated them. There are claims that the CS produced lethal levels of cyanide, but those claims are treated somewhat skeptically. A quick gander over the 'Net reveals nothing overly conclusive. Indeed, there is evidence that in some cases, cyanide can be created in fires with no CS present at all.

The autopsy reports are available here http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/d_list00.html

Although most of the toxocology reports are 'positive' for cyanide, I don't know anything about the subject to say if the levels are anywhere near incapacitating or not.

2) The FBI snipers fired at people who were trying to escape.

This claim was initially made after some flashes were seen on infra-red images.

This conspiracy theory was completely discredited and even the survivors don't claim this any more.

Whilst I definitely do not claim that the FBI tried to shoot people, I'm actually not entirely sure where I stand on the claim that no shots were fired at all. I've watched the footage a few times now, with the benefit of having seen small arms fire through my tank's thermal imager for a comparison, and something is definitely dodgy. Now, on the one hand, you have conspiracists claiming that there was small arms fire coming from the 'tank' as it was running through the gymnasium, but given that the CEV has no armament on the location claimed, unless agents were lying on the engine deck, the claim is impossible. On the other hand, some of the other footage appears to be very much a signature of persons lying on the ground firing automatic weapons, with one exception that there should be a hot-spot where the head is, but even that could be accounted for by a helmet. I would need to see the raw unedited footage instead of the short clips normally shown on TV/the web in order to come to a proper personal conclusion.

True, but it is obvious that you wouldn't allow fire fighters near a building of heavily armed, dangerous people. Also there was the matter that the building was full of ammunition and explosives that were extremely dangerous and were exploding in the fire.

Agreed, particularly on the bit about ammunition being in the fire.

Basically I don't believe there was any conspiracy here, when stupidity is a much more obvious reason.

Part of it, yes. I'm not sure if the 'desire to make a point' counts as a conspiracy or not, but I think it's the major claim against the government: The whole conflict was a result of a contrived setup for PR purposes.

They were actually involved in a similar situation with another group a while later and using their new training and experts, they were able to diffuse the situation and get the people to surrender peacefully.

Who was that, out of interest?

NTM

ISAW

bk wrote:

The thing is that an abused child in the presence of the abuser is very unlikely to say that s/he was abused. That is why normal procedure is to have a private conversation, but they couldn't because of all the gun carrying nutters standing around them wouldn't allow it. Seriously can you think of a more intimidating environment?

Oh BTW the claims that David Koresh took multiple under aged brides and abused children were made by former members of the group.

Exactly! CLAIMS. What claims and by whom? And what is the supporting evidence?

THis has gone on long enough. I believe Korish was wacco but the "think of the children" gambit is just plain silly. There is NO evidence of him abusing children. To insinuate that difficulty in collecting evidence suggests evidence in itself just is not a runner. It is a classic use of a sterotype to label Korish as evil. "We all know child molesters are evil and there is suspision Korish was one" just isnt a runner! Also is the connection of the responsibility of what happened at Waco with the "rooting out evil" motive. Even if Korish was a molester and drug fiend (another rediculous assertion made ) that STILL does not justify burning a place to the ground and straffing a roof under which the women and children are sheltering. It is like claiming Hitler liked painting therefore anyone who likes painting is evil.

This whole like is usually trotted out to whip up fear and panic so that people will allow the "authorities" to do anything " for the sake of the children". Look at the justifications given at the time for occupation of Iraq for Gods sake.